TerraPower to build demo nuclear plant in WY

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,556
13,234
136
Nuclear reactors are notorious for cost/schedule overruns. iIRC MIT did a study on this a little while back.
news.mit.edu

Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.

MIT researchers have analyzed the causes of many cost overruns on new nuclear power plants in the U.S., which have soared in the past 50 years. The findings may help designers of new plants build in resilience to prevent such added costs.
news.mit.edu news.mit.edu

Hopefully they will take that into consideration.

IMO nuclear is a part of any realistic reduction in fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodisanAtheist and blackangst1
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,406
136
  • Like
Reactions: pmv, Meghan54, Paratus and 1 other person
herm0016

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,524
1,132
126
just put the GD tweet in the thread. twitter is blocked at some work places. and its annoying as F when people cant do anything put copy a link.


nuclear is great, we should have more. too bad i cant know what they said in the tweet.
 
S

s0me0nesmind1

Lifer
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Fanatical Meat said:
Wrong Nuclear is not off the table in AOCs Green New Deal. She is not against newer, safer Nuclear.

morningconsult.com

Ocasio-Cortez: Green New Deal ‘Leaves the Door Open’ on Nuclear

Green New Deal sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still has an "open mind" on nuclear energy and differentiates between the decades-old plants in the U.S. and more advanced technologies under development.
morningconsult.com
Click to expand...

Her entire joke of a bill didn't mention it once.

Addressing the public scrutiny for your stupidity after the fact doesn't count ;)
 
A

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
Well, finally - though it's a long way off (haven't chosen site - so EPA study will be next hurdle). I've been waiting, and nearly gave up, on seeing Gen 4 Nuclear power plants come online to provide base-load power. To me, and ideal mix for the future would be Solar, Wind, Hydro, Battery storage and Nuclear base-load. Better late than never I suppose. IIRC, fast reactors produce left over fission products with much short half lives - a real bonus for storage. If it were a fast breeder reactor, it would be able to burn spent fuel from older reactors (with some pre-processing). This will be a very interesting development to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herm0016
A

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
  • Like
Reactions: herm0016
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,406
136
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Her entire joke of a bill didn't mention it once.

Addressing the public scrutiny for your stupidity after the fact doesn't count ;)
Click to expand...

To address your Misogyny & Stupidity. The Bill is an outline with goals not specific processes. Those are to be agreed upon later.
 
N

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,815
1,294
136
Took me awhile, but "Natrium" is a keyword for a SMR-class Nuclear Planet.

=> "Wyoming has been a leader in energy for over a century, and we hope our investment in Natrium will allow Wyoming to stay in the lead for many decades to come," Gates said, speaking remotely at Wednesday's news conference.
The reactor will use small, modular reactors as opposed to the traditional larger ones. These smaller modular reactions can be used individually or combined to create a single large power plant.

Image for the article/twitter and the study earlier in thread was for older phat models compared to these puny efficient ones. I was like confused because everyone pretty much agreed to stop using the older phat models for SMRs.
 
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,737
16,049
146
Ajay said:
Well, finally - though it's a long way off (haven't chosen site - so EPA study will be next hurdle). I've been waiting, and nearly gave up, on seeing Gen 4 Nuclear power plants come online to provide base-load power. To me, and ideal mix for the future would be Solar, Wind, Hydro, Battery storage and Nuclear base-load. Better late than never I suppose. IIRC, fast reactors produce left over fission products with much short half lives - a real bonus for storage. If it were a fast breeder reactor, it would be able to burn spent fuel from older reactors (with some pre-processing). This will be a very interesting development to watch.
Click to expand...

Personally I’d have the government make good on its promise to the nuclear industry to handle high level waste by building some big honking reactors with the right fuel cycle to burn that high level waste and then use the power generatated to synthesize carbon neutral av-gas and bunker fuel from CO2 in the air/ocean.

The synthetic fuel can make airline travel and heavy freighters carbon neutral while selling the gas can partially offset the entire cost of the operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay and K1052
S

s0me0nesmind1

Lifer
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Fanatical Meat said:
To address your Misogyny & Stupidity. The Bill is an outline with goals not specific processes. Those are to be agreed upon later.
Click to expand...

purbeast0 said:
"It doesn't fit my agenda so it's FAKE NEWS!!"
Click to expand...

Your post are getting pathetically sad lol.

There isn't any kind of fake news about the fact that it was actively excluded for mentioning in the Green New Deal - while all others were mentioned specifically.

I'm sorry she is so dumb that she is on your level.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Lifer
Nov 17, 2019
13,413
7,904
136
Solar collectors in space to beam energy to us:

solar-power-satellite.jpg
 
Brainonska511

Brainonska511

Lifer
Dec 10, 2005
29,528
15,050
136
Fenixgoon said:
Nuclear reactors are notorious for cost/schedule overruns. iIRC MIT did a study on this a little while back.
news.mit.edu

Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.

MIT researchers have analyzed the causes of many cost overruns on new nuclear power plants in the U.S., which have soared in the past 50 years. The findings may help designers of new plants build in resilience to prevent such added costs.
news.mit.edu news.mit.edu

Hopefully they will take that into consideration.

IMO nuclear is a part of any realistic reduction in fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
I would imagine a big part is related to construction issues - lack of institutional knowledge and lacking of large scale metal casting facilities in the US (requiring expensive imports of cast parts, and even more time if there are any delays in the balance between part deliveries and construction, or even a mistake in a cast piece).

Building a new reactor did lead Westinghouse to bankruptcy.
 
A

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
Paratus said:
Personally I’d have the government make good on its promise to the nuclear industry to handle high level waste by building some big honking reactors with the right fuel cycle to burn that high level waste and then use the power generatated to synthesize carbon neutral av-gas and bunker fuel from CO2 in the air/ocean.

The synthetic fuel can make airline travel and heavy freighters carbon neutral while selling the gas can partially offset the entire cost of the operation.
Click to expand...
Good point (and memory!), at least in the short run. I think I'd rather see aviation/bunker fuel transition to hydrogen in the longer term. It does take a butt load of energy to crack ocean water for H2. The power density is very high for high pressure H2 tanks. Synthetic lubricants and plastics might be a better target for extracted environmental CO2. Anything that leaves coal, oil and natural gas in the damn ground is a win.
 
Last edited:
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
Paratus said:
Personally I’d have the government make good on its promise to the nuclear industry to handle high level waste by building some big honking reactors with the right fuel cycle to burn that high level waste and then use the power generatated to synthesize carbon neutral av-gas and bunker fuel from CO2 in the air/ocean.

The synthetic fuel can make airline travel and heavy freighters carbon neutral while selling the gas can partially offset the entire cost of the operation.
Click to expand...
Since you only get campaign contributions by supporting new nuclear energy and never any for cleaning up past waste, your dream of dealing intelligently with waste is exactly that, a dream. To know the fate of future nuclear waste one need only look at the past. an ever accumulating potential disaster. Also, of course, every nuclear reactor that has ever been built was sold as 100% safe.

Would you allow nuclear reactors to be built by by organisms that are genetically predisposed to solve their problems with waste by moving to another tree?

Just because a problem may have an easy solution, don't assume it will be. The grievances that drive white males into the arms of white supremacists could easily be fixes in they voted for socialists. We'll see that long before we safely deal with all our past nuclear waste. Sorry.

www.ewg.org

Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy for the U.S. Possible? Yes.

Across America, devastating hurricanes, hellish wildfires, deadly heat waves and other disasters have brought the climate change crisis close to home. In response, more than 100 cities, counties and states – including the two largest, California and New York – have committed to use only...
www.ewg.org www.ewg.org
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
UNCjigga

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,666
10,386
136
Weren’t we all supposed to be using decay reactors right about now? I think roughly 10-15 years ago I read that by 2020, you could just dig a 12 foot hole on your property, drop a lead-encased reactor the size of a portajohn down the hole, hook up some wiring and you’d have free power for 10+ years.

I thought I read that some company like Toshiba was going all in on this concept??
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,595
48,158
136
UNCjigga said:
Weren’t we all supposed to be using decay reactors right about now? I think roughly 10-15 years ago I read that by 2020, you could just dig a 12 foot hole on your property, drop a lead-encased reactor the size of a portajohn down the hole, hook up some wiring and you’d have free power for 10+ years.

I thought I read that some company like Toshiba was going all in on this concept??
Click to expand...

I presume you're referring to the Toshiba 4S. Never got built though intriguing conceptually. Think the 10MWe version was designed to run for 30 plus years before refueling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom